About time someone brought this about

[Harrison]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/31/ ... topstories

Drug tests for people on welfare, etc.? Awesome.

[Tuggan]

Cool. Maybe next step will be prison for anyone that tests positive.

[Spazz]

What happens to that god awful drug feinds family then dude ?

[brinstar]

believe it or not, i'm actually for this

and:

What happens to that god awful drug feinds family then dude ?

that's why there's a 60 day grace period. if you fail your first test, you can still feed your family while you get clean. will that make everyone quit? no, but it will make a lot more quit than do now

[Harrison]

What happens to that god awful drug feinds family then dude ?

That's not my problem. It is however my money they're buying drugs with, and not food for their family. So fuck 'em.

[Tuggan]

of course you're for it. job security man.

problem is, they will only nab the complete idiots and marijuana users. i don't care if they check welfare recipients, but making you piss test for unemployment? that's ridiculous.

[Harrison]

Why is it ridiculous to make sure the people sucking down taxpayer money aren't spending it on drugs? A completely unnecessary expenditure.

[Tuggan]

Uh, the ones collecting unemployment are the taxpayers. You pay into that safety net the entire time you're employed, so in the event you lose your job you have something to fall back onto.

[brinstar]

yeah, but that money is there to support you while you look for other work, so you can pay for essentials like food, utilities, and rent

it undermines the whole point if you're using it to get baked

[Tuggan]

So a better solution would be add another expensive addition to each and every unemployment and welfare application?

Testing the 5000 people that pass without an issue is going to be more cost effective than not paying the 1 guy that wasn't smart enough to stop smoking weed a month before his 2nd piss test?

[Harrison]

Lol

5000:1 is a laughably low estimate.

[Tuggan]

5000:1
1000:1
100:1
10:1
5:1

Like it matters. It's still an unnecessary, and completely ineffective way to go about it. Spend a fucking ton of money in a lame attempt to stop paying a handful of bums a welfare check.

[brinstar]

drug testing is actually pretty inexpensive

the pro shit we use costs a lot less than the consumerized shit you see at walgreens or w/e

[Tuggan]

There is no such thing as inexpensive when it comes to contracts and government.

[Darcler]

All my drug piss tests have been little strips of paper and if it was a government place (Medicaid) I peed in a little plastic dixie cup. Wrote my name in Sharpie on the front. Total cost is probably something like a buck 50.


My body cant pass a drug test. Hope I never need government assistance again.

[Evermore]

Welfare should have drug tests and the recipients should be required to show up and put an 8 hr day in. Streets need to be cleaned etc. Only exceptions should be a medical excuse and that should have to be doubly confirmed.

[brinstar]

My body cant pass a drug test. Hope I never need government assistance again.

?

[Zanchief]

Why is it ridiculous to make sure the people sucking down taxpayer money aren't spending it on drugs? A completely unnecessary expenditure.

So this has nothing to do with the legality of it and more to do with the fact that you don’t think they should be spending their money on something that you deem unnecessary and recreational. Does this same logic apply to anything else? The government could pay for audits of all their spending. If they go to a ball game BAM no more money bitch!

Maybe you should be more worried about trying to get them working again, and less with what they’re doing to relax.

Welfare should have drug tests and the recipients should be required to show up and put an 8 hr day in. Streets need to be cleaned etc. Only exceptions should be a medical excuse and that should have to be doubly confirmed.

Then they would be protected under labour laws and would have to be paid minimum wage which is a lot more than welfare.

Shaking your fists at people who are abusing the system is all fine and good but let's be realistic here guys.

[ClakarEQ]

I can see both points of this but I think something that folks may not realize is how or what drugs stay in your system and for how long.

I suspect the largest number of folks are alcohol addicts, and that doesn't stay in your system long enough to be tested IMO, then the next is either crack/coke or maybe pot.

Crack/Coke is in your system for around a week, if that, I think it's closer to 3 days, so the folks with brains won't be caught.

Then you've got pot, that stays in your system for 30 days and is least addictive regarding the narcotics being discussed.

However if this is what they want done, then it needs to be a lot more aggressive. The "ban" list should include nicotine, over the counter drugs, prescription drugs, etc. I mean if you can buy a pack of smokes, you best not be on welfare.

I agree with Tuggan though, and IMO this is another poor attempt to catch the exceptions to the rule instead of recognizing some folks are going to be criminals and there is nothing you're going to be able to do about it.

[Gypsiyee]

I think it's a pretty terrible, and clearly politically motivated, idea - it sounds pretty good on the surface, but if you use some brain cells you can see all sorts of holes in it.

1. it's obviously retarded to lump UI benefits in with things like welfare. I suppose I should also be deprived of health insurance benefits that I've paid for should I come down with a cough because I smoke a cigarette once in a while when I drink.

2. to feasibly do something like this without causing a huge uproar, everyone receiving any sort of government assistance would need to comply. this includes banks receiving bail-out money, federally funded non-profit organizations, churches, people on disability, etc.

2. in the fascination with the 'drug war', people forget about all sorts of things that they can't possibly test you for - I guess smoking pot is worse than spending the money on cigarettes (more expensive than pot for the average smoker, mind you), liquor, hookers, or a horse race? nevermind shit like video games and movies.

I mean where do you draw the line? are we going to next tell them that the only products they're allowed to buy are generic and if they buy any food other than main diet staples they'll get their privileges revoked?

If people receiving the funding are complying with all of the requirements, ie actively looking for work, or in the case of food stamps and some of the other programs putting in just as much work as you and I, often times MORE work but happen to make a lower wage, who are we to tell their entertainment money? because they've had some unfortunate things in their lives happen or because they happen to have a low-paying job they're simply doomed to not have any fun for the rest of their lives? I'd say that Tuggan's ratio of 5000:1 is a pretty good one, when you consider that close to all of the people they "catch" are going to be totally upstanding hard working people who use recreationally.

it's a completely hypocritical proposition. basically it boils down to what you spend your recreation money on - not all those testing positive for drugs are going to be addicts, nor do all people who test positive need help - the opposite is more likely. unless you regulate that unemployed people are to focus on a job search 24/7 and that all low-wage workers are going to have to work even longer hours with no opportunity to de-stress, it's just a stupid regulation that makes no sense in an apples to apples comparison.

It's also laughable that republicans are the ones who are so gung-ho on this. I mean, aren't they the ones always preaching about less government involvement? I guess that really means less government involvement [but only if you're rich like us. if you're poor, you need to be under a government microscope like the nasty bacteria you are]

[Drem]

i think it's a great idea. tuggan, you said welfare is there for taxpayers but i don't think you realise what type of people use food stamps. i don't know anyone on food stamps that pays taxes or even has a good job. i tried to get on food stamps like 3 years ago but they said i didn't work enough hours because i was a student. so to get food stamps i have to work 20+ hours as well as go to school fulltime. but then someone without a job at all, and probably without any teeth, can walk in and they get $140 a month instantly. fuck that. i work way harder than any bum does. i should be getting $140 a month for free to pay for my food so i can succeed in college. but instead they give it to these homeless wrecks that trade food for meth. and that really does happen all the time

unemployment's different. that is definitely just there for the taxpayers because you can only claim it if you just got laid off or whatever. and i think unemployment benefits should only require a drug test if the job you just lost did. because some people can make the same or a little more off unemployment and they don't have to do one single thing. they just have to make up places they looked for jobs at and report it once a month to the department to "show that they're looking for work". it's a crock of shit. people get on unemployment and food stamps and become dregs to society. that money should be going to people that are working their asses off and still not making ends meet imo

so yeah, put in drug tests. if it fucks some moron over that had a poppy seed muffin, seinfeld-style, i could care less, because there are bigger issues with our welfare system that need to be fixed imo

if there were drug tests then yeah, people could get around it, people do that every day, but not everyone. it would keep people we don't want on welfare off of it. i guarantee a drug addict will not quit to get on welfare. they'll only try to find clean piss from someone and give up if they can't

[Arlos]

Also, what about all the false positives that could screw up someone's life? You really can get flagged for opiates if you have a poppy seed muffin in the morning. How about prescription medications that can cause flags as well? Vicodin is basically tylenol and codeine, and codeine is an opiate and will flag as such. Yet I don't think vicodin prescriptions are exactly uncommon. While vicodin may be an obvious source of false positives, it's hardly the only one, and you can't expect every average guy out there to know every single possibility for drug interaction and what different drug tests might flag their prescriptions as.

Also, do you honestly think the utterly massive bureaucracy that this would require is going to check all those factors? You honestly think that there will be ANY easy process to get a false positive cleared off your record? Somehow, I don't think so.

Furthermore, are you going to test for tobacco or alcohol? How is blowing money on a fifth of Absolut or a carton of Marlboro's any better than blowing the same amount on weed? You don't want YOUR tax money being used to buy weed by someone who's out of work. Guess what: who cares. Can a Jewish person object to someone using the money to buy bacon? Hell, I didn't like my tax dollars going to Iraq. Guess how far I'd get demanding they not be used for that.

In any case, the expense of setting all this up, including the test taking legions, the bureaucracy to track it all, and the medical technicians to process it all would cost vastly more than you'd save. Hell, a friend of mine worked as medical lab tech in the Air Force once upon a time. Due to budget, time and manpower constraints, they never processed even all of the serviceman drug tests that got sent to them. They'd put all the samples on a table, sweep 80% of them into the trash and just mark them all as clean, before actually testing the remainder. You honestly think a testing program for tens of millions would be more efficient? Hah.

No, ultimately it is a bad idea. It's unnecessary government intrusion into people's private lives, which there's too much of already.

-Arlos

[Tuggan]

where did i say welfare is for the taxpayers?

[ClakarEQ]

The drug tests will end up costing more than the potential savings you're expecting to see so the result would dictate an increase in taxes for those that work in order to sustain our police state mentality. We will all lose in the end, not gain by this.

[Drem]

where did i say welfare is for the taxpayers?

are you kidding

Uh, the ones collecting unemployment are the taxpayers. You pay into that safety net the entire time you're employed, so in the event you lose your job you have something to fall back onto.